Boyilla v. Boyilla, 1 CA-CV 16-0546-FC

Background

Wife filed for legal separation in June 2015; Husband counter-petitioned for dissolution of a 19-year marriage. Parties agreed under Rule 69 that Wife would undergo a private vocational evaluation paid by Husband.
Wife failed to schedule Husband’s evaluator; Husband moved to compel and for related attorneys’ fees. The court granted the motion and ordered the evaluation; Wife again failed to comply.
Husband moved for discovery sanctions under Rule 65(B) and for preclusion of undisclosed evidence under Rule 65(C). Wife disclosed, belatedly, that she had an earlier vocational evaluation but did not produce results and failed to answer interrogatories about spousal maintenance.
The family court (pre‑decree) signed three orders (with Rule 78(B) language): precluding Wife from seeking spousal maintenance, barring claims about separate property/value deviations, accepting that Wife owned $70,000 in gold, and precluding evidence beyond limited disclosures; it also awarded Husband attorneys’ fees.
Wife’s counsel moved to withdraw shortly before trial; the court denied continuances, allowed withdrawal, and Wife proceeded pro se at trial; she later obtained new counsel and sought a new trial and appealed the decree and post-decree orders.

Issues

Issue	Wife's Argument	Husband's Argument	Held
Timeliness / Jurisdiction of appeals from pre-decree sanctions	Sanctions orders were appealable (Rule 78(B) language) and appeal timely	Orders were interlocutory; Rule 78(B) language improperly used making initial appeals premature	Court held Rule 78(B) language on pre-decree sanctions was substantively unwarranted; appeal from final decree was timely and properly brings interlocutory sanctions along with it
Discovery sanctions (denying spousal maintenance, allocating $70,000 gold, precluding evidence)	Sanctions were improper, imposed without hearing, and were overly harsh	Wife intentionally failed to comply, prejudiced Husband; court properly considered lesser sanctions and awarded fees	Abuse of discretion not shown; sanctions and preclusion affirmed (Wife waived argument about lack of hearing)
Attorney withdrawal and denial of continuance	Withdrawal so close to trial and denial of continuance prejudiced Wife’s right to fair trial	Pretrial filings/exhibits were submitted; no transcript to show prejudice	No presumed prejudice absent transcript; claim waived/lost on the record — affirm decree
Child support (attribution of Husband’s second‑job income)	Court should have included Husband’s second‑job income (~$22,000/mo)	Court rightly declined to attribute non‑recurring/irregular second‑job income; Guidelines allow denial if not historically regular	Court did not abuse discretion in excluding the second-job income; child support affirmed
Attorneys’ fees awards to Husband	Fees were improper as sanction for maintenance denial	Fees properly awarded under Rule 65(A)(4)(a) for failure to comply unless substantially justified	Fees affirmed; absent transcript record supports conclusion Wife did not show substantial justification

Key Cases Cited

Ghadimi v. Soraya, 230 Ariz. 621 (App. 2012) (court has independent duty to examine jurisdiction)
Bollermann v. Nowlis, 234 Ariz. 340 (2014) (post-decree order resolving all issues except fees not final without Rule 78(B) certification)
Sw. Gas Corp. v. Irwin, 229 Ariz. 198 (App. 2012) (Rule 78(B)/54(b) certification must be substantively warranted)
Hammoudeh v. Jada, 222 Ariz. 570 (App. 2009) (default/dismissal sanctions require finding party, not only counsel, obstructed discovery and consideration of lesser sanctions)
Burton, State ex rel. Dep’t of Econ. Sec. v. Burton, 205 Ariz. 27 (App. 2003) (absent transcript, appellate court presumes record supports trial court’s findings)
McNutt v. McNutt, 203 Ariz. 28 (App. 2002) (Guidelines and treatment of second-job income for child support)
Roberts v. City of Phoenix, 225 Ariz. 112 (App. 2010) (court must find party at fault and consider lesser sanctions for discovery violations)